NALSAR row: Can BCI legally block enrolment of entire 2026 batch?
On August 13, Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra directed all State Bar Councils not to enrol any graduate of the 2026 batch of NALSAR (National Academy of Legal Studies and Research) until further orders. The direction came amid an inquiry into a campaign by some students opposing Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s participation in the university’s convocation. The Chairman sought a factual report from NALSAR identifying those who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign.
In his letter, Mr. Mishra said a law student with no respect for the highest judicial office “is not expected to be a responsible or sensible advocate, teacher or a judge”. He described such people as “a liability on the profession” who indulge in strikes and boycotts and tarnish the image of the legal profession.
Subsequently, the BCI modified the direction, allowing all NALSAR 2026 graduates to enrol with the State Bar Council of their choice, while continuing the inquiry.
The episode raises questions about the statutory powers of the BCI, the authority of its Chairman, and the legality of imposing a batch-wide restriction when individual responsibility has not yet been established.
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI is a statutory body. Section 7(1)(b) entrusts it with laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, while Section 7(1)(g) gives it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils. Sections 7(1)(h) and 7(1)(i) relate to promotion and standards of legal education and recognition of universities whose law degrees qualify for enrolment. Section 49 empowers the BCI to frame rules on professional conduct and legal education standards.
Section 48B of the Act is the power to give directions. It says that for the proper and efficient discharge of the functions of a State Bar Council, the BCI may give directions that the State Bar Council must comply with.
Rule 15 of the BCI Rules states that, subject to Council resolutions, the Chairman exercises general control and supervision over the Council’s affairs. Rule 18 allows the Chairman to pass interim orders in revisional and other matters arising out of the Council’s supervisory jurisdiction.
However, legal experts argue that a blanket direction stopping an entire batch from enrolling lacks statutory basis. Advocate N. Manoj Kumar, a member of the BCI and the Bar Council of Kerala, said, “Enrolment is primarily the statutory function of the State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, and there appears to be no specific provision empowering the BCI Chairman, acting individually, to suspend the enrolment of an entire batch.”
On the question of enrolment itself, Section 6(1)(a) entrusts State Bar Councils with admitting persons as advocates on their rolls. Section 24 sets out qualifications for admission, while Section 24A provides disqualifications. Sections 25 and 26 deal with the authority and procedure for admission, and Section 26A empowers a State Bar Council to remove a name from its roll.
Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, a member of the Bar Council of Kerala, said, “No blanket restrictions can be imposed by the BCI. Every application has to be dealt with independently and if they meet the statutory requirements, they are entitled to be enrolled.”
The BCI’s modified order suggests a recognition of procedural concerns, but the legal validity of the initial direction remains contested. Legal observers point out that individual responsibility for the campaign has not been established, and punishing an entire batch without such identification may violate principles of natural justice.
